In the monthly "Ethical Inquiry" series, we examine ethical questions, highlighting a broad array of opinion from journalism, academia, and advocacy organizations. Our intent is to illuminate and explore the complexity of some of the most vexing ethical questions of our time.

In this edition of “Ethical Inquiry" we explore the ethics of
revenge (defined as “retaliating in kind or degree,” which implies proportional
revenge, or, more broadly, “to inflict injury in return for”).

Other scientists have shown that
symbolic revenge is less tempting than revenge-in-kind or “real” punishment. In
other words, revenge
is pleasurable only when it does tangible damage.

However, though there may be
biological incentives towards revenge
and violence, there may
be biological costs to not pursuing
revenge. Leaving aside the harm inflicted by acts of revenge, victims can “suffer
‘subordination stress,’” which produces a variety of harmful physical effects.
“Victimizing someone else,” ideally, but not necessarily, the original
perpetrator, can relieve this stress. Sandra
Bloom summarizes it in this way: “hurt people hurt people… [R]eciprocity,
or ‘tit-for-tat,’ is the basis of social relationships… [T]he desire for
revenge is an evolved outgrowth of our human sense of unsatisfied reciprocity.”

Modern justice institutions use a
combination of those views, punishing individuals for criminal actions while striving
to prevent future harmful actions. There is continuing debate as to whether the
goal of prevention is best achieved through punitive measures or through rehabilitation
and correction.

Retaliation
remains a state option for this reason. Retaliation to discourage “bad
behavior” amongst states, including discouraging nuclear proliferation, remains
common even in the era of international law and the United Nations.

Retaliation to discourage “bad behavior” amongst individuals
and corporations is a common intellectual underpinning to many large financial
judgments and prison sentences.

The Price of Revenge

On the contrary, the desire for revenge,
even if not acted upon, can physically harm people through the stress it
causes.

Obsessive pursuit of revenge,
especially for minor injuries, is part of many psychological disorders. Some
have proposed that an overwhelming desire for revenge for a specific traumatic
event constitutes its own disorder, “Posttraumatic
Embitterment Disorder.” In essence, what separates normal “embitterment”
from “Embitterment Disorder” is the
strength of the reaction. Retaliation that is wildly disproportionate or
misdirected is a sign of mental illness.

There
are other costs to taking revenge. Retaliation creates more victims.
Retaliation may also beget retaliation. Even the fear of being retaliated
against for taking revenge, however justified, can weigh on a person’s psyche. Thus,
while there are strong biological reasons to pursue revenge, there are also
biological costs.

Some have made a link between
revenge and crime – unsurprising, perhaps,
since revenge by definition typically falls outside the bounds of state-sanctioned
legal punishment. In 2003, it
was estimated that 20% of violent assaults and property damage in the
United Kingdom were motivated by revenge.

Individual
acts of revenge can also go beyond
the level of the original transgression.

Cycles of Revenge

If the purpose of revenge is to
make up for past wrongs and deter future ones, then revenge cycles negate the
supposed benefit of revenge. Escalating acts of aggression may draw more people
into conflict and cause new acts of harm rather than preventing them.

Regulating Revenge?

Arguably, religious texts and early law codes did
not in all cases seek to remove the revenge mechanism: rather, they sought to
limit it and, at least to some extent, replace it with impartial arbiters and
executors of punishment/restitution.

In justifying a vengeful action,
people often try to frame the issue as a matter of justice. However, justice is
distinct from vengeance. Justice is an
“impartial” mechanism for determining punishment. In contrast, revenge can be a
very personal and subjective form of punishment.

Hammurabi’s law code
created a justice based around the premise of proportionate retribution. “If a
man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out.”